October 22, 2010

1. She's "an incredibly graceful surrogate” for the President and inspires “warm and fuzzy” feelings.

2. "She's got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going. If she starts talking... her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts to coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O. to being something of an albatross."

Nicely argued, Professor. #1 is of course what we are being told that we believe; while #2 expresses our actual thoughts, thus reinforcing them. From a mind controller's perspective, Juan Williams was poison to the edifice that was being slowly constructed by the old cult trick that says "everyone we know agrees with this" ( a serious effort of the Journolist group) and carefully isolating their controlees from interraction with outside family and society.

It's the point at the heart of the matter. Anyone else enjoying this as much as I am? It' ridiculous how much fun this is turning out to be. Especially in light of Williams' two million dollar contract offer.

I don't have a problem w/ Michelle. Same for Nina and Juan. I would say that none of these three seem to be especially brilliant, but, living in a proverbial glass house, I'm not looking down while making that observation.

She is neither. Michelle is certainly not ugly, and she has a number of positive attributes, but she is nowhere near the accomplished, graceful creature the media describes. But for the media to continue to try to sell her as something she is not tends to build backlash and resentment toward the woman. I think this is largely why we’ve seen the level of ugliness directed at her (that and the rather strident comments she made during the 2008 elections)

Michelle enjoys fashion, but, like a lot of women who like fashion, she isn't particularly good at it (her clothes usually don't fit well, and she doesn't seem to understand what shapes flatters her).

She is not physically graceful in her movements, and she has poor posture.

Although she is well educated, she hasn't achieved anything particularly remarkable and noteworthy herself – not to warrant the level of praise she receives on this account.

You are exactly correct. Michelle Obama is an average looking middle aged mom. It is the worst sort of racist patronizing for the media to claim she is glamorous in the way Sardozky's wife is or Jackie Kennedy was. And the more they try to shove such a rediculous falsehood down the country's throats the more there will be an ugly backlash against her.

NPR just blew their brains out. The next congress simply won't fund them and their stations. And with the government borrowing fifty cents for every dollar it spends, spending on NPR is simply not defensible. PBS should also be very nervous, they to will be on the chopping block soon enough.

The government has finally come to the outer limits of what it can borrow. The lenders will want to see a more disciplined spending scheme and that will require substantial spending cuts and non-essential spending such as NPR will be the easy low hanging fruit that will be cut first.

"Michelle is certainly not ugly, and she has a number of positive attributes, but she is nowhere near the accomplished, graceful creature the media describes. But for the media to continue to try to sell her as something she is not tends to build backlash and resentment toward the woman."

Agree completely and would like to add the she brought a bit of it on herself by hectoring us on kids' diets. When public figures get into any sort of lecture on what is really none of their business, they'd better be able to live under an electron microscope.

Which was a pretty obvious result. I just love that NPR, which has been a frequent targets of efforts to defund by fiscal conservatives, thought this would be an awesome thing to do two weeks before the election. During pledge week. Hee!

They've been after Juan ever since he made comments about Rev. Wright and Obama. The official line at NPR and just about everywhere else except for Fox and talk radio, was that there was NO story there. I respected Juan for speaking out about Rev. Wright.

Used to be a PBS supporter and would watch the various news broadcasts including an early (6:am) Saturday morning Wallstreet Journal Editorial Report with Paul Gigot until PBS officials frightened by the 1st Amendment and diverse opinion, drummed them out of their hallowed halls.

They didn't terminate Juan's contract for saying Michelle was a Mau-Mau, did they?

Blogger (and former California Democratic senatorial candidate) Mickey Kaus wrote today: “It's clear from this interview, for example, that Williams' firing was in part delayed punishment for him saying that Michelle Obama had ‘this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going on.’”

" jsled said... Statement #2 is nothing like the statement that resulted in Williams termination."

Many comments along these lines. The problem is, NPR has said they have long been concerned about Williams' comments on Fox. Was this quote one of them?

Williams is clearly on a shorter leash than other reporters, which is why he was canned for something as innocuous as this. Is there much doubt his willingness to deviate from the liberal party line is the reason for his short leash? Is there any other reason for it?

Nals: "Quick show of hands: who among the commentators would back a law requiring Muslims to register with local law enforcement?"

This is not only outrageous and incredibly stupid but clearly the suggestion of a liberal. If you asked the same question on one of your silly sophomoric lefty blogs and substituted the word Conservative or Christian for Muslims you would actually get a response.

What this is about, is that PBS/NPR is a largely publicly funded non-profit foundation organized for educational purposes and is supposed to be strictly politically non-partisan, and it has now exposed itself as being anything but.

Furthermore, Juan Williams, whatever one may think of his opinions - and in my case, that is not much - is an idealist without a mean bone in his body, so we just automatically rise to his defense.

Here's an interview from the AJC with Shiller specifically referencing the quote as something that was over the line. So your comments are like saying strike one is irrelevant because only strike three matters.

"Q: So did Juan really get fired over just those Muslim comments? [He said he was uncomfortable with Muslims dressed in traditional garb on airplanes during a Fox News telecast yesterday.]

A: There have been several instances over the last couple of years where we have felt Juan has stepped over the line. He famously said last year something about Michelle Obama and Stokely Carmichael. [The quote on Fox News last year: Obama "has this Stokely-Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going" and that she'll be an "albatross" for President Obama.]. This isn’t a case of one strike and you’re out."

Since both of those viewpoints are matters of opinion, do you think that you should be fired from your job for expressing either one?

If my value to my employer depended on the credibility of my utterances, then I would deserve being fired for utterance 2 (not based in reality) more than I would deserve being fired for utterance 1 (flattery-enhanced truth).

He was a news analyst. He was on every Saturday reviewing the weeks news. I couldn't stand it because:1) He didn't analyze , he just regurgitated. As much "analysis" as reading the headlines on Google News2) Always managed to mention Watergate in any analysis. It seemed Mr. Schor's insight and worldview never matured beyond Watergate.

Marshal - I think the real problem is that he was on Fox News at all. I have heard that Mara Liasson has been given grief over this as well.

NPR and their 'types' hate Fox News and think nobody should have anything to do with it.

Whis is funny if you think about it. They complain that Fox News lacks balance. But Fox brings on intelligent thinkers from the left to debate politics. You'd think this would make them happy. But it appears that they only want to see the END of Fox news.

NPR made it clear that they fired him because of complaints and pressure from "listeners" who knew that Fox wouldn't buckle to pressure, so decided to go after his job. Talk about standing up for your principles.

By what trick did the raven in Wallace Steven's poem turn into a pieman?

The magician: a former KU English professor, Victor Contoski, with a penchant for puns. Since retirement he's "developed an interest in spiritual matters and the concept that thoughts can have an effect on the physical world."

I was surprised at what Nina Totenberg actually looks like. My picture all these years was completely different - more of a Rachel Maddow precursor.

Did she major in medieval poetry? Does she play the cello?

Yeech.

Just checked - she comes from a violinist family, but has NO DEGREE AT ALL HERSELF. Only one year of college making Sarah Palin more educated.

Hahaha. Not that I hold it against her. You should not have to have degrees for many, many jobs that now require them in their devalued state. There was a cereal maker near me who wanted an MBA to market KASHI - give me an effing break.

WV: Calishi: The new MBA-approved name of the California version of kashi. It's Calicious.